In article <volvhp$34acl$1@dont-email.me>, BCFD 36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote: >>On 2/12/25 20:06, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries.
What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What
does it even mean by "banned"?
Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6)
or even middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they
would be right, for the most part.
Bingo.
When these are tracked down, generally it turns out it was
way back in the days when "Banned in Boston!" was a selling
point, and Boston actually banned books. Other times, when
a grammar school library declines to stock a book generally
inappropriate for pre-teens (A Clockwork Orange is arguably
in this category, as is Lolita) it's hyped as a "Banned book."
I don't count it as a "Ban" unless it's currently legally
prohibited from being sold to adults. I'm not sure I know
of any books that meet that standard, in the US, anyway.
Unless it's a book of kiddie porn with pictures, maybe,
if someone's actually trying to market such a thing.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:54:39 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt ><usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <volvhp$34acl$1@dont-email.me>, BCFD 36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote:
On 2/12/25 20:06, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries.
What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What >>>does it even mean by "banned"?
Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6) >>>or even middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they >>>would be right, for the most part.
Bingo.
When these are tracked down, generally it turns out it was
way back in the days when "Banned in Boston!" was a selling
point, and Boston actually banned books. Other times, when
a grammar school library declines to stock a book generally
inappropriate for pre-teens (A Clockwork Orange is arguably
in this category, as is Lolita) it's hyped as a "Banned book."
I don't count it as a "Ban" unless it's currently legally
prohibited from being sold to adults. I'm not sure I know
of any books that meet that standard, in the US, anyway.
Unless it's a book of kiddie porn with pictures, maybe,
if someone's actually trying to market such a thing.
Exaxtly.
In South Africa, back in the days of apartheid, there was a
Publications Control Board that really did ban books. If you bought,
sold or has such a book in your posession you were committing an
offence and could be prosecuted.
I don't think you can be prosecuted in the USA for possessing a book
that some obscure school library has declined to stock, and to call
such a book "banned" is unnecessary hype.
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.
On 18/02/25 04:17, Paul S Person wrote:
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.
Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.
The problem isn't that changes are made -- changes are always made
when a book is filmed. The problem is that the changes make no sense
at all until you realize that PJ treated the book as a series of
Action Sequences separated by boring things like character
development or plot.
I didn't at all like the war theme at the end of the final film. It felt
as if the directors had switched over to Hollywood-style shoot-em-ups
and car crashes.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:47:47 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 18/02/25 04:17, Paul S Person wrote:
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.
Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.
I agree, and the same applies to the movies.
In article <h468rj56stn82991tsfs3jqrb630sjn50l@4ax.com>,
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:47:47 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 18/02/25 04:17, Paul S Person wrote:
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.
Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The >>>first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.
I agree, and the same applies to the movies.
Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize >just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in >Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.
On 18/02/2025 05:33, Steve Hayes wrote:
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.
Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 05:33, Steve Hayes wrote:
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.
Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?
No.
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?
No.
On 18/02/2025 05:33, Steve Hayes wrote:
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.
Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting your favourite films?
(Like Usenet hoped that Google would never tire of being its somewhat lackadaisical archive.)
https://xkcd.com/1454/
On 18/02/2025 06:20, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 05:33, Steve Hayes wrote:
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.
Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?
No.
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?
No.
Ha! :-)
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete.
I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.
Richard Heathfield wrote:
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete.
I don't think it is. I think there's still a market for people
who want to have the film on their shelf, not just `out there'.
I think that it's fair to call dvds obsolete.
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete.
I don't think it is. I think there's still a market for people
who want to have the film on their shelf, not just `out there'.
On 2/18/2025 12:33 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 05:57:14 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
In article <h468rj56stn82991tsfs3jqrb630sjn50l@4ax.com>,
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:47:47 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 18/02/25 04:17, Paul S Person wrote:
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make >>>>>> it into the film. They are very focused.
Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The >>>>> first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that >>>>> they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end >>>>> of the fourth volume.
I agree, and the same applies to the movies.
Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves >>>from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize >>> just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.
Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.
Me too.
Lynn
I think that it's fair to call dvds obsolete.
Then we need a definition.
By Wiktionary's definition - "No longer in use; gone into disuse;
disused or neglected (often in favour of something newer)." -
DVDs are not obsolete because I'm still using them, so is Steve
Hayes, and so are a number of acquaintances in "real life".
Besides, DVDs have only been around for ten minutes, so it's a
bit early to be chucking them away. (I would estimate my
collection's purchase price to be of the order of exp(8.5), so
it's not an investment I plan lightly to discard.)
I accept that Wiktionary's definition is descriptive, not
prescriptive, but I'd be curious to see your counterdefinition.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 06:20, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 05:33, Steve Hayes wrote:
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.
Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?
No.
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?
No.
Ha! :-)
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete. I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.
\
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:19:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:33 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 05:57:14 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
In article <h468rj56stn82991tsfs3jqrb630sjn50l@4ax.com>,
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:47:47 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 18/02/25 04:17, Paul S Person wrote:
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books, >>>>>>> even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make >>>>>>> it into the film. They are very focused.
Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last >>>>>> one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The >>>>>> first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that >>>>>> they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end >>>>>> of the fourth volume.
I agree, and the same applies to the movies.
Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves >>>>from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize >>>> just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in >>>> Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny >>>> Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.
Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.
Me too.
Lynn
If you stopped after (say) the first three, you should be aware that
the author /warned/ parents that the serious was going to get more and
more ... serious ... as time went on.
As it did -- people who, while not major characters in the series, are
very much part of the story started dying in Book 4, and major
characters in Book 5. And the last two books are even darker.
The books also get considerably longer, which means the films omiNt a
lot more of their contents. The entire ELF sequence is missing. We
never see Neville with his parents. One of the things Rowling did was, >consulting her Secret Master Plot, advise the filmmakers on what could
be cut and what would be needed to make what would come later have a >foundation.
On 2/18/2025 10:44 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:19:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:33 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 05:57:14 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
In article <h468rj56stn82991tsfs3jqrb630sjn50l@4ax.com>,
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:47:47 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 18/02/25 04:17, Paul S Person wrote:
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books, >>>>>>>> even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make >>>>>>>> it into the film. They are very focused.
Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last >>>>>>> one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The >>>>>>> first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that >>>>>>> they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end >>>>>>> of the fourth volume.
I agree, and the same applies to the movies.
Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize >>>>> just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in >>>>> Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny >>>>> Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.
Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.
Me too.
Lynn
If you stopped after (say) the first three, you should be aware that
the author /warned/ parents that the serious was going to get more and
more ... serious ... as time went on.
As it did -- people who, while not major characters in the series, are
very much part of the story started dying in Book 4, and major
characters in Book 5. And the last two books are even darker.
The books also get considerably longer, which means the films omiNt a
lot more of their contents. The entire ELF sequence is missing. We
never see Neville with his parents. One of the things Rowling did was,
consulting her Secret Master Plot, advise the filmmakers on what could
be cut and what would be needed to make what would come later have a
foundation.
OTOH, the very long section recounting Our Heroes' Trek across Britain
in Book 7 is shortened to a pastiche of scenes with a relevant
soundtrack in the film. This was a definite improvement.
I ripped through all seven books back in 2010 or so. Been a while. I
do not remember any kitchen slaves in the dungeon.
Lynn
I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the >quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 05:02:30 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.
I think I got through more than two, but ...
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the >>quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.
Yes, exactly.
I watched a few episodes of the TV series before it reminded me
how seriously the books had turned me off. The sex and bare boobs
were not enough to keep me.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:47:47 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 18/02/25 04:17, Paul S Person wrote:
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.
Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.
I agree, and the same applies to the movies.
I enjoyed the first three, and have reread the books several times,
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.
But the later ones I could do without.
The problem isn't that changes are made -- changes are always made
when a book is filmed. The problem is that the changes make no sense
at all until you realize that PJ treated the book as a series of
Action Sequences separated by boring things like character
development or plot.
I didn't at all like the war theme at the end of the final film. It felt
as if the directors had switched over to Hollywood-style shoot-em-ups
and car crashes.
A new American edition of the Narnia books is due to appear in a
couple of months, and the cover illustrations suggest that the US
publishers have placed them all in the "sword and sorcery" genre. Most
of the covers show the children brandishing drawn swords, which seems,
to me at least, as if they are tring to sell them as a series of
"Action sequences separated by boring things like character
development or plot."
Perhaps that is because cinema lends itself more to action scenes, but
I once read a book whose author stated in the preface that it was all
action, with all the boring books left out. It was one of the most
boring books I have ever read ("Temple", by Matthew Reilly).
On 18/02/2025 12:50, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
<snip>
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete.
I don't think it is. I think there's still a market for people
who want to have the film on their shelf, not just `out there'.
I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.
Fortunately for me, all the movies I want to see are available on
DVD, and many of them are on Blu Ray.
I was given the complete Harry Potter on DVD, but I gave them
away as soon as I could find a good home for them. I prefer
Unseen University.
On Feb 18, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote
(in article<5a09rjlblsbnqtq1gdf336en830oo215th@4ax.com>):
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 06:20, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 05:33, Steve Hayes wrote:
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.
Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?
No.
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?
No.
Ha! :-)
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete. I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.
\
Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You’re in South Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone seems to really like John Wayne.
If you can’t get the movies you like, and if they’re available elsewhere (Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, Target...) may I propose a swap? We get you the movies if you take Elon back. Please.
The reason that DVD-only shops must close is that so many
new movies (and TV series) are bought up for streaming and
are never released on disc. CDs led that transition, I think.
I still stop by the shop (when on my way to buy tea, a few doors
away) and there are a few CDs being released -- but more likely
Zappa or Greatful Dead, mining their archives, than new music.
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book. There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Steve Hayes wrote:
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but
for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin
against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story.
But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the
second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing
in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to
read about
it in fiction.
I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes
with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story, something
happening! I do
not want 100s of pages of environmental descriptions, or bad
poetry, or
irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip that and only read the
dialogue when it
comes to authors of that type. Then I do not buy more of their
books.
That is why I like the golden age of science fiction! In those
days, authors
were able to write stories in less than 300 pages, and they wrote
good stories!
At most they published more books instead.
I often wonder about this modern fashion of tapping out 1000+
pages of bricks?
It is very strange.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Steve Hayes wrote:
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for
me, at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin
against long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a
story. But some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R.
Martins seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the
second book. There's enough political wheeling and dealing and
backstabbing in the quotidian world (there, I used that word)
without having to read about it in fiction.
I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story, something happening! I do not want 100s of pages of environmental descriptions, or bad poetry, or irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip
that and only read the dialogue when it comes to authors of that
type. Then I do not buy more of their books.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:52:08 +0000, Richard Heathfield
The local chain that specialized in DVD and Blu Ray is still open.
They make some money on new vinyl, but especially on GAMEs.
Google confirms, Games are a bigger industry than cinema, in billions
of dollars (discs are like $60, not $20).
Fortunately for me, all the movies I want to see are available on
DVD, and many of them are on Blu Ray.
The reason that DVD-only shops must close is that so many
new movies (and TV series) are bought up for streaming and
are never released on disc. CDs led that transition, I think.
I still stop by the shop (when on my way to buy tea, a few doors
away) and there are a few CDs being released -- but more likely
Zappa or Greatful Dead, mining their archives, than new music.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 05:02:30 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.
I think I got through more than two, but ...
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:44:32 -0800, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:19:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:33 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 05:57:14 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
In article <h468rj56stn82991tsfs3jqrb630sjn50l@4ax.com>,
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:47:47 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 18/02/25 04:17, Paul S Person wrote:
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books, >>>>>>>> even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make >>>>>>>> it into the film. They are very focused.
Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last >>>>>>> one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The >>>>>>> first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that >>>>>>> they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end >>>>>>> of the fourth volume.
I agree, and the same applies to the movies.
Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize >>>>> just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in >>>>> Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny >>>>> Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.
Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.
Me too.
Lynn
If you stopped after (say) the first three, you should be aware that
the author /warned/ parents that the serious was going to get more and
more ... serious ... as time went on.
I have read them all, but in rereading, I prefer reading the first
three. I see the point that the wizarding world is not just a happy
shining place but that there are bad people in it, but that is evident
in the first three books too, though the children, being younger, have
a tendency to draw sharper lines, seeing people as either all good or
all bad -- eg Hagrid Good, Snape Bad, and as they grow older come to
see that both good and evil can be present in the same person.
As it did -- people who, while not major characters in the series, are
very much part of the story started dying in Book 4, and major
characters in Book 5. And the last two books are even darker.
... and even longer.
The books also get considerably longer, which means the films omiNt a
lot more of their contents. The entire ELF sequence is missing. We
never see Neville with his parents. One of the things Rowling did was,
consulting her Secret Master Plot, advise the filmmakers on what could
be cut and what would be needed to make what would come later have a
foundation.
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book. There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.
I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story,
something happening! I do not want 100s of pages of environmental
descriptions, or bad poetry, or irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip
that and only read the dialogue when it comes to authors of that
type. Then I do not buy more of their books.
I don't think this is entirely the authors' fault. I have the impression
that the publishers are creating pressure to include lots of padding.
They've moved away from selling quality, towards selling books by the
yard. Unfortunately the readers are losing out, because the padding
ruins the story.
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.
I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.
On 19/02/2025 09:00, D wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Steve Hayes wrote:
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.
I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my biggest
gripes
with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story, something happening! >> I do
not want 100s of pages of environmental descriptions, or bad poetry, or
irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip that and only read the dialogue when it >> comes to authors of that type. Then I do not buy more of their books.
That is why I like the golden age of science fiction! In those days,
authors
were able to write stories in less than 300 pages, and they wrote good
stories!
At most they published more books instead.
I often wonder about this modern fashion of tapping out 1000+ pages of
bricks?
It is very strange.
Reading sucks, doesn't it?
I bring you your perfect novel.
A Tale
------
by Anon.
Once upon a time, there were good people and bad people. The bad people did bad things. The good people stopped them from doing bad things. The bad people said sorry and became good people and many died of boredom. All the good people who were left lived happily ever after, until they too died of boredom.
The End.
£19.99 from all good booksellers.
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> writes:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:52:08 +0000, Richard Heathfield
The local chain that specialized in DVD and Blu Ray is still open.
They make some money on new vinyl, but especially on GAMEs.
Google confirms, Games are a bigger industry than cinema, in billions
of dollars (discs are like $60, not $20).
Fortunately for me, all the movies I want to see are available on
DVD, and many of them are on Blu Ray.
The reason that DVD-only shops must close is that so many
new movies (and TV series) are bought up for streaming and
are never released on disc. CDs led that transition, I think.
I still stop by the shop (when on my way to buy tea, a few doors
away) and there are a few CDs being released -- but more likely
Zappa or Greatful Dead, mining their archives, than new music.
I've found antique stores and flea markets to be good sources
for DVDs and Blu-rays that are out of stock with most retailers.
Amazon has really gone down hill in that area recently; many
older titles that I look for are either out of stock or only
available used from third party sellers.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 19/02/2025 09:00, D wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Steve Hayes wrote:
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but
for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have
nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a
story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the
second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and
backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to
read about
it in fiction.
I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes
with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story,
something happening! I do
not want 100s of pages of environmental descriptions, or bad
poetry, or
irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip that and only read the
dialogue when it
comes to authors of that type. Then I do not buy more of their
books.
That is why I like the golden age of science fiction! In those
days, authors
were able to write stories in less than 300 pages, and they
wrote good stories!
At most they published more books instead.
I often wonder about this modern fashion of tapping out 1000+
pages of bricks?
It is very strange.
Reading sucks, doesn't it?
Incorrect statement.
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.
I think there is a small, but growing movement that appreciates CD/LP/Casette. >It's not big business of course, but the trend is growing. I think that is a >very good thing that people realize that it is better to own your media and >books, than being tethered to a service that sucks money out of your wallet.
Richard Heathfield wrote:
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete.
I don't think it is. I think there's still a market for people
who want to have the film on their shelf, not just `out there'.
I think that it's fair to call dvds obsolete. A couple of hours ago I
wanted to give the webaddress on some shops where you can buy dvds - but
they almost entirely had BluRays. I presume that the few dvds were the
last of their stock.
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> writes:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:52:08 +0000, Richard Heathfield
The local chain that specialized in DVD and Blu Ray is still open.
They make some money on new vinyl, but especially on GAMEs.
Google confirms, Games are a bigger industry than cinema, in billions
of dollars (discs are like $60, not $20).
Fortunately for me, all the movies I want to see are available on
DVD, and many of them are on Blu Ray.
The reason that DVD-only shops must close is that so many
new movies (and TV series) are bought up for streaming and
are never released on disc. CDs led that transition, I think.
I still stop by the shop (when on my way to buy tea, a few doors
away) and there are a few CDs being released -- but more likely
Zappa or Greatful Dead, mining their archives, than new music.
I've found antique stores and flea markets to be good sources
for DVDs and Blu-rays that are out of stock with most retailers.
Amazon has really gone down hill in that area recently; many
older titles that I look for are either out of stock or only
available used from third party sellers.
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> writes:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:52:08 +0000, Richard Heathfield
The local chain that specialized in DVD and Blu Ray is still open.
They make some money on new vinyl, but especially on GAMEs.
Google confirms, Games are a bigger industry than cinema, in billions
of dollars (discs are like $60, not $20).
Fortunately for me, all the movies I want to see are available on
DVD, and many of them are on Blu Ray.
The reason that DVD-only shops must close is that so many
new movies (and TV series) are bought up for streaming and
are never released on disc. CDs led that transition, I think.
I still stop by the shop (when on my way to buy tea, a few doors
away) and there are a few CDs being released -- but more likely
Zappa or Greatful Dead, mining their archives, than new music.
I've found antique stores and flea markets to be good sources
for DVDs and Blu-rays that are out of stock with most retailers.
Amazon has really gone down hill in that area recently; many
older titles that I look for are either out of stock or only
available used from third party sellers.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025, WolfFan wrote:
Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You’re in South
Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone seems to >> really like John Wayne.
If you can’t get the movies you like, and if they’re available elsewhere
(Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, Target...) may I propose a swap? We get you the >> movies if you take Elon back. Please.
Also check local shops that sell used CDs/LPs and such things. Sometimes >they have a couple of boxes with DVDs practically giving them away. You
can also score some nice deals by checking web sites selling used stuff, >there you can find loads of people just giving away their DVDs.
In article <vp3lfk$243b5$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 10:44 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
If you stopped after (say) the first three, you should be aware that
the author /warned/ parents that the serious was going to get more and
more ... serious ... as time went on.
As it did -- people who, while not major characters in the series, are
very much part of the story started dying in Book 4, and major
characters in Book 5. And the last two books are even darker.
The books also get considerably longer, which means the films omiNt a
lot more of their contents. The entire ELF sequence is missing. We
never see Neville with his parents. One of the things Rowling did was,
consulting her Secret Master Plot, advise the filmmakers on what could
be cut and what would be needed to make what would come later have a
foundation.
OTOH, the very long section recounting Our Heroes' Trek across Britain
in Book 7 is shortened to a pastiche of scenes with a relevant
soundtrack in the film. This was a definite improvement.
I ripped through all seven books back in 2010 or so. Been a while. I
do not remember any kitchen slaves in the dungeon.
That's what House Elves are: slaves. Hermione even starts a liberation >society and the others treat her like "Oh, that's so cute!"
On 2/18/2025 10:44 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo -- HP films / books>
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:19:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/18/2025 12:33 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 05:57:14 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize >>>>> just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in >>>>> Dumbledore is examined and tested.
I ripped through all seven books back in 2010 or so. Been a while. I
do not remember any kitchen slaves in the dungeon.
Haha... yes, I remember the Peter Hamilton books in the science fiction bookstore. Like you, they are way too heavy for me to handle. ;)
On 19/02/2025 15:46, D wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 19/02/2025 09:00, D wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Steve Hayes wrote:
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for me, >>>>> at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin against >>>>> long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book. >>>>> There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the >>>>> quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about >>>>> it in fiction.
I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my biggest >>>> gripes
with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story, something
happening! I do
not want 100s of pages of environmental descriptions, or bad poetry, or >>>> irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip that and only read the dialogue when >>>> it
comes to authors of that type. Then I do not buy more of their books.
That is why I like the golden age of science fiction! In those days,
authors
were able to write stories in less than 300 pages, and they wrote good >>>> stories!
At most they published more books instead.
I often wonder about this modern fashion of tapping out 1000+ pages of >>>> bricks?
It is very strange.
Reading sucks, doesn't it?
Incorrect statement.
<shrug> Do you take all irony literally?
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.
This is frequently true.
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And Elron, who
started out producing doorstops but found short stories easier to sell
until he created a new market for his doorstops.
--scott
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
I think there is a small, but growing movement that appreciates CD/LP/Casette.
It's not big business of course, but the trend is growing. I think that is a >> very good thing that people realize that it is better to own your media and >> books, than being tethered to a service that sucks money out of your wallet.
For a while there was a big move toward the LP, in part because of the large space for a nice album cover and in part because it's difficult to do abusive mastering practices on LP.
Then folks started doing abusive mastering work on LP and wound up with LPs that aren't any louder, just worse-sounding, and I think to some extent this is killing the market for some of the newer releases.
I do still do cut five or six LPs a year. Haven't cut a 45 in decades. --scott
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:57:30 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025, WolfFan wrote:
<snippo, contention is that DVDs are obsolete, something I am sure
every true video elitest believes with all their heart and all their
soul>
Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You¢re in South >>> Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone seems to >>> really like John Wayne.
If you can¢t get the movies you like, and if they¢re available elsewhere >>> (Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, Target...) may I propose a swap? We get you the >>> movies if you take Elon back. Please.
Also check local shops that sell used CDs/LPs and such things. Sometimes
they have a couple of boxes with DVDs practically giving them away. You
can also score some nice deals by checking web sites selling used stuff,
there you can find loads of people just giving away their DVDs.
I believe I once bought a used book for $0.01. Plus $4.99 Shipping & Handling. Did it really cost $4.99 to ship it to me? Or would part of
that be better regarded as being for the item itself? When doing my
search I would regularly add the S&H into the purchase price and use
that to decide which offer to take.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing
doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And Elron, who
started out producing doorstops but found short stories easier to sell
until he created a new market for his doorstops.
Did he write for elves, humans or both?
On 19/02/25 23:37, Peter Moylan wrote:
I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.
I recommend Great North Road. Brilliant. Just the right length.
D wrote:
Haha... yes, I remember the Peter Hamilton books in the science fiction
bookstore. Like you, they are way too heavy for me to handle. ;)
Why would you handle Peter Moylan?
I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.
On 20/02/2025 03:42, Titus G wrote:
On 19/02/25 23:37, Peter Moylan wrote:
I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.
I recommend Great North Road. Brilliant. Just the right length.
420-odd miles is a touch long for me. I prefer the M5, at a much more manageable 160 miles.
On 19/02/2025 09:00, D wrote:
I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes
with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story, something
happening! I do
not want 100s of pages of environmental descriptions, or bad
poetry, or
irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip that and only read the
dialogue when it
comes to authors of that type. Then I do not buy more of their
books.
That is why I like the golden age of science fiction! In those
days, authors
were able to write stories in less than 300 pages, and they wrote
good stories!
At most they published more books instead.
I often wonder about this modern fashion of tapping out 1000+
pages of bricks?
It is very strange.
Reading sucks, doesn't it?
I bring you your perfect novel.
A Tale
------
by Anon.
Once upon a time, there were good people and bad people. The bad
people did bad things. The good people stopped them from doing
bad things. The bad people said sorry and became good people and
many died of boredom. All the good people who were left lived
happily ever after, until they too died of boredom.
The End.
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.
I think there is a small, but growing movement that appreciates CD/LP/Casette. >It's not big business of course, but the trend is growing. I think that is a >very good thing that people realize that it is better to own your media and >books, than being tethered to a service that sucks money out of your wallet.
On 19/02/25 20:00, D wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Steve Hayes wrote:
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for
me, at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin
against long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a
story. But some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R.
Martins seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the
second book. There's enough political wheeling and dealing and
backstabbing in the quotidian world (there, I used that word)
without having to read about it in fiction.
I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story,
something happening! I do not want 100s of pages of environmental
descriptions, or bad poetry, or irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip
that and only read the dialogue when it comes to authors of that
type. Then I do not buy more of their books.
I don't think this is entirely the authors' fault. I have the impression
that the publishers are creating pressure to include lots of padding.
They've moved away from selling quality, towards selling books by the
yard. Unfortunately the readers are losing out, because the padding
ruins the story.
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.
I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to >>producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.
This is frequently true.
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing >doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And Elron, who
started out producing doorstops but found short stories easier to sell
until he created a new market for his doorstops.
The trouble with the fashion for long novels is that I like to read in
bed, and the book gets too heavy to hold. And when I get bored with
the padding I tend to fall asleep. One such novel, which I took back
to the library before I had finished it, was "Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell". I just got tired of holding it. It did have some good points
-- the footnotes were more interesting than the story.
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost
always find a point where they stopped writing short novels and
turned to producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems
to be abrupt.
This is frequently true.
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started
producing doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And
Elron, who started out producing doorstops but found short stories
easier to sell until he created a new market for his doorstops.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:03:59 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
I think there is a small, but growing movement that appreciates CD/LP/Casette.
It's not big business of course, but the trend is growing. I think that is a >> very good thing that people realize that it is better to own your media and >> books, than being tethered to a service that sucks money out of your wallet.
Exactly. I can see no point in subscribing to a streaming service (and wouldn't know how to make it work anyway, nor could I afford it). So I
make do with the CDs and DVDs I bought long ago.
All the movies I've seen since 2021, either shown on TV or because we
have them on DVD. It's not worth paying monthly for that.
5-Jun-2021, Saturday Ronin.
21-Jul-2021, Wednesday Escape from Pretoria
31-Jul-2021, Saturday Escape to Victory.
16-Apr-2022, Saturday Pan's Labyrinth
23-Jul-2022, Saturday The Darkest Hour
20-Oct-2022, Thursday Man of God
13-Mar-2023, Monday Four weddings and a funeral
25-Dec-2024, Wednesday Dead Poets Society
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing >>> doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And Elron, who
started out producing doorstops but found short stories easier to sell
until he created a new market for his doorstops.
Did he write for elves, humans or both?
At the end he wrote for people who were buying his books with no intention
of reading them. I guess you could say he wrote for neither elves nor humans but only for money.
--scott
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:37:54 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to >>producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.
In the case of the Harry Potter series, however, it was gradual. Each
book is longer and has more padding than the last. It's one reason I
prefer the first three.
I agree with what Ted said about the kids growing older and seeing
more nuances in character and environment, but it was the length and
the padding that put me off.
On 19 Feb 2025 16:24:43 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing >>doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And Elron, who >>started out producing doorstops but found short stories easier to sell >>until he created a new market for his doorstops.
Foundation? Foundation and Empire?
But yes, in sf particularly, I generally like short stories much
better than long ones.
And my favourites among the longer ones would probably freak out most >hardcore sf fans:
Asimov is not completely blameless. In the Foundation trilogy, the first three volumes are of traditional size, but all the sequels are thick.
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 16:24:43 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing >>> doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And Elron, who
started out producing doorstops but found short stories easier to sell
until he created a new market for his doorstops.
Foundation? Foundation and Empire?
The three volumes in the Foundation Trilogy were the biggest things he ever wrote, a giant epic... and a tiny fraction of the size of so many modern novels.
The four extras I'd rather not even think about. But they are still barely exceeding 400 pages.
But yes, in sf particularly, I generally like short stories much
better than long ones.
And my favourites among the longer ones would probably freak out most
hardcore sf fans:
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things. --scott
On 2025-02-20, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
Asimov is not completely blameless. In the Foundation trilogy, the first
three volumes are of traditional size, but all the sequels are thick.
It's almost as if the increase in novel lengths coincided with the >introduction of word processing...
Of course back in the 19th century, when writers were paid by the
word, excessive length wasn't unknown.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
Scott Dorsey hat am 20.02.2025 um 20:08 geschrieben:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 16:24:43 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started producing >>>> doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And Elron, who
started out producing doorstops but found short stories easier to sell >>>> until he created a new market for his doorstops.
Foundation? Foundation and Empire?
The three volumes in the Foundation Trilogy were the biggest things he ever >> wrote, a giant epic... and a tiny fraction of the size of so many modern
novels.
The four extras I'd rather not even think about. But they are still barely >> exceeding 400 pages.
But yes, in sf particularly, I generally like short stories much
better than long ones.
And my favourites among the longer ones would probably freak out most
hardcore sf fans:
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things. >> --scott
What about dropping AUE from your crosspostings?
As an alternative, I'll block this thread for me on AUE.
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things. --scott
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things. >> --scott
What is this? Did I miss a jewel?
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things.
What is this? Did I miss a jewel?
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
And my favourites among the longer ones would probably freak out most >>hardcore sf fans:
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things. >--scott
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:03:59 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
I think there is a small, but growing movement that appreciates CD/LP/Casette.
It's not big business of course, but the trend is growing. I think that is a
very good thing that people realize that it is better to own your media and >>> books, than being tethered to a service that sucks money out of your wallet.
Exactly. I can see no point in subscribing to a streaming service (and
wouldn't know how to make it work anyway, nor could I afford it). So I
make do with the CDs and DVDs I bought long ago.
You are a wise man!
All the movies I've seen since 2021, either shown on TV or because we
have them on DVD. It's not worth paying monthly for that.
5-Jun-2021, Saturday Ronin.
21-Jul-2021, Wednesday Escape from Pretoria
31-Jul-2021, Saturday Escape to Victory.
16-Apr-2022, Saturday Pan's Labyrinth
23-Jul-2022, Saturday The Darkest Hour
20-Oct-2022, Thursday Man of God
13-Mar-2023, Monday Four weddings and a funeral
25-Dec-2024, Wednesday Dead Poets Society
I could watch Pan and Dead poets society again out of thise. I enjoyed
both movies. Dead poets more than Pans labyrinth.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Peter Moylan wrote:
I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story,
something happening! I do not want 100s of pages of environmental
descriptions, or bad poetry, or irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip
that and only read the dialogue when it comes to authors of that
type. Then I do not buy more of their books.
I don't think this is entirely the authors' fault. I have the impression
that the publishers are creating pressure to include lots of padding.
They've moved away from selling quality, towards selling books by the
yard. Unfortunately the readers are losing out, because the padding
ruins the story.
This is the truth! I have heard rumours that in american educational literature,
the payment is based on quantity and not quality, hence the door stops
you get
in most subjects with lots of padding, and cream and cherry on top.
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.
This is the truth! I like Hemingways short stories, his long ones I find boring.
I have also, like you say, noted an increase in book volume over time.
It is
very sad. Could it also be that as the author becomes more famous, the
editor
dares to cut less? After all, the concept works, so let's not rock the
boat.
I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.
Haha... yes, I remember the Peter Hamilton books in the science fiction bookstore. Like you, they are way too heavy for me to handle. ;)
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many
things.
--scott
What is this? Did I miss a jewel?
On 20 Feb 2025 19:08:42 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
And my favourites among the longer ones would probably freak out most
hardcore sf fans:
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things. >> --scott
I'll check it out on GoodReads, maybe read some reviews.
In article <39699d92-1270-927a-e7d4-0fbf80722792@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things. >>> --scott
What is this? Did I miss a jewel?
Pohl & Williamson:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_Trilogy
I recall liking it, but nothing else whatsoever.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things. >>What is this? Did I miss a jewel?
Fred Pohl and Jack Williamson. Classic and amazing space opera, but
at the same time very inovative. Probably the first Cyberpunk work
ever written, with the first and maybe the best example of jacking in.
I liked it so much I bought Gateway. Which was also great and kind of terrifying but in a different way.
--scott
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:42:36 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:03:59 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
I think there is a small, but growing movement that appreciates CD/LP/Casette.
It's not big business of course, but the trend is growing. I think that is a
very good thing that people realize that it is better to own your media and
books, than being tethered to a service that sucks money out of your wallet.
Exactly. I can see no point in subscribing to a streaming service (and
wouldn't know how to make it work anyway, nor could I afford it). So I
make do with the CDs and DVDs I bought long ago.
You are a wise man!
All the movies I've seen since 2021, either shown on TV or because we
have them on DVD. It's not worth paying monthly for that.
5-Jun-2021, Saturday Ronin.
21-Jul-2021, Wednesday Escape from Pretoria
31-Jul-2021, Saturday Escape to Victory.
16-Apr-2022, Saturday Pan's Labyrinth
23-Jul-2022, Saturday The Darkest Hour
20-Oct-2022, Thursday Man of God
13-Mar-2023, Monday Four weddings and a funeral
25-Dec-2024, Wednesday Dead Poets Society
I could watch Pan and Dead poets society again out of thise. I enjoyed
both movies. Dead poets more than Pans labyrinth.
I agree, though I have a slight preference for "Pan's Labyrinth".
But the thing is that paying a monthly subscription to watch one movie
a year, which is all we have watched over the last couple of years, is
really a waste of money. If the facility was available, we might
return to the practice of the previous years, and watch 3 during the
year, but it still wouldn't be worth it.
On 2025-02-19 09:50, D wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Peter Moylan wrote:
I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story,
something happening! I do not want 100s of pages of environmental
descriptions, or bad poetry, or irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip
that and only read the dialogue when it comes to authors of that
type. Then I do not buy more of their books.
I don't think this is entirely the authors' fault. I have the impression >>> that the publishers are creating pressure to include lots of padding.
They've moved away from selling quality, towards selling books by the
yard. Unfortunately the readers are losing out, because the padding
ruins the story.
This is the truth! I have heard rumours that in american educational
literature,
the payment is based on quantity and not quality, hence the door stops you >> get
in most subjects with lots of padding, and cream and cherry on top.
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.
This is the truth! I like Hemingways short stories, his long ones I find
boring.
I managed to get through one Hemingway novel, and halfway through another. I have not read anything by him since. I can't even remember their titles.
I have also, like you say, noted an increase in book volume over time. It
is
very sad. Could it also be that as the author becomes more famous, the
editor
dares to cut less? After all, the concept works, so let's not rock the
boat.
I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.
Haha... yes, I remember the Peter Hamilton books in the science fiction
bookstore. Like you, they are way too heavy for me to handle. ;)
On 2025-02-20, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
Asimov is not completely blameless. In the Foundation trilogy, the first
three volumes are of traditional size, but all the sequels are thick.
It's almost as if the increase in novel lengths coincided with the >introduction of word processing...
Of course back in the 19th century, when writers were paid by the
word, excessive length wasn't unknown.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:42:36 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
I could watch Pan and Dead poets society again out of thise. I enjoyed >>both movies. Dead poets more than Pans labyrinth.
I agree, though I have a slight preference for "Pan's Labyrinth".
But the thing is that paying a monthly subscription to watch one movie
a year, which is all we have watched over the last couple of years, is
really a waste of money. If the facility was available, we might
return to the practice of the previous years, and watch 3 during the
year, but it still wouldn't be worth it.
And it's only not in the library -- the kids can buy a copy and read
it if they want.
I do seem to have noticed, however, that "banned" is being used on
both sides of the issue. With satisfaction on one, and with hysteria
on the other.
Of course, Trump could change that with the stroke of a pen on an
Executive Order. Or at least try to do so. This is why I am just
sitting back, relaxing, and enjoying the increasingly weird Trump The
Sequel show.
Foundation? Foundation and Empire?
The three volumes in the Foundation Trilogy were the biggest things he ever >wrote, a giant epic... and a tiny fraction of the size of so many modern >novels.
The four extras I'd rather not even think about. But they are still barely >exceeding 400 pages.
On 18/02/2025 23:47, WolfFan wrote:
On Feb 18, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote
(in article<5a09rjlblsbnqtq1gdf336en830oo215th@4ax.com>):
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 06:20, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 05:33, Steve Hayes wrote:
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.
Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?
No.
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?
No.
Ha! :-)
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete. I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.
\
Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You’re in South
Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone seems to >> really like John Wayne.
If you can’t get the movies you like, and if they’re available elsewhere
(Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, Target...) may I propose a swap? We get you the >> movies if you take Elon back. Please.
Referring to Wikipedia, South African DVDs
are "Region 2" - like Europe and Japan -
and there may be a television standard
compatibility question. "Region 1" discs,
from U.S./Canada/Bermuda, typically won't
work. I think that shipping Elon Musk back
to South Africa also won't work, but just to
see the look on his face would be worth it.
On 20/02/2025 16:14, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:57:38 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:37:54 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.
In the case of the Harry Potter series, however, it was gradual. Each
book is longer and has more padding than the last. It's one reason I
prefer the first three.
I agree with what Ted said about the kids growing older and seeing
more nuances in character and environment, but it was the length and
the padding that put me off.
Looking at the spines of the American (Scholastic) paperbacks, that
does not appear to be the case.
The widest is #5.
#4 and #7 appear to be very similar
#6 appears to be a bit less than #5.
It is true that #3 is wider than #1 or #2, but #4 is where they
/really/ get wide.
I should note that, in the books, there is, from the discovery of the
Prophecy onwards, a deliberate attempt to make it unclear if it is
Harry or Neville who is the One. The films don't really do that,
although Neville is certainly present in them.
I don't see that interpretation. A "prophecy"
was received before the main events of the
"Harry Potter" books took place, and as such
things go, it was typically uncertainly worded,
and insofar as "the One" is identified, only
their date of birth is given - but by the time
of the late chapter in each book where a teacher,
usually Dumbledore, explains the book's remaining
mysteries to Harry, when the prophecy comes up,
that matter apparently was settled.
I do have a couple of personal theories on the
subject: that Neville's silly uncle is a secret
Voldemort follower and is trying to assassinate
him throughout the series (drowning, defenestration,
exploding plant); and that several students,
including Neville, are assigned to a school "House"
whose ethics don't match their existing personality
but are directions in which they need to be pushed.
That Neville is a Gryffindor not born, but made.
And is better for it.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 23:50:25 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 23:47, WolfFan wrote:
On Feb 18, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote
(in article<5a09rjlblsbnqtq1gdf336en830oo215th@4ax.com>):
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 06:20, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 05:33, Steve Hayes wrote:
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.
Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?
No.
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting >>>>>>> your favourite films?
No.
Ha! :-)
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete. I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.
\
Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You’re in South >>> Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone seems to >>> really like John Wayne.
If you can’t get the movies you like, and if they’re available elsewhere
(Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, Target...) may I propose a swap? We get you the >>> movies if you take Elon back. Please.
Referring to Wikipedia, South African DVDs
are "Region 2" - like Europe and Japan -
and there may be a television standard
compatibility question. "Region 1" discs,
from U.S./Canada/Bermuda, typically won't
work. I think that shipping Elon Musk back
to South Africa also won't work, but just to
see the look on his face would be worth it.
It's also in "Region B" rather than "Region A", so Blu-Ray discs (BDs)
would have the same problem.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:52:26 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
I have seen references to "region-free players", but how legal they
are I have no idea. Some discs are also region-free, but that is no
help here as most are not.
A "region free player" that is legal will cost more, because the
distributor pays a licensing fee for each additional region, like,
$10 or $20 dollars. All the DVD players are capable of all regions
depending only on what the firmware/software allows.
I don't know how the PAL TV standards fit in.
If you intend to watch more than a couple, you can buy players
at pretty low prices these days. See if your local shops that carry
used (and new) CDs, DVD, Blu Rays and *games* also carry
equipment -- ours do. Most of their sales, these days, are games,
but they still carry an enormous backlog of CDs, DVDs, and Blu Rays.
If you want to build a collection, old discs are as cheap as they
they have ever been, new or used. Lately, I've bought new
CDs at $12 which I thought were going to be $15 or more,
used CDs at $5.
BTW, half the discs of my collections of CDs and DVDs were
bought 'used' -- I built my collection on older movies and by
replacing LPs. These were purchased locally, where the
shops do check what they buy on trade-in -- I guess I would
expect a little more problem if I were buying "used" from dealers
on Amazon.
More of my Blu Rays were purchased new, since I bought them
when they were first issued.
--
Rich Ulrich
I have seen references to "region-free players", but how legal they
are I have no idea. Some discs are also region-free, but that is no
help here as most are not.
It's been a while, but it used to be pretty easy to get region-free
DVD players. Software developers hate that kind of thing, so they
would put hide cheat codes in the firmware to turn it off with a
special sequence you would key on the remote.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:52:26 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
I have seen references to "region-free players", but how legal they
are I have no idea. Some discs are also region-free, but that is no
help here as most are not.
A "region free player" that is legal will cost more, because the
distributor pays a licensing fee for each additional region, like,
$10 or $20 dollars. All the DVD players are capable of all regions
depending only on what the firmware/software allows.
I don't know how the PAL TV standards fit in.
Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You’re in South >Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone seems to >really like John Wayne.
On 25/05/2025 16:59, Paul S Person wrote:26riu%3dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.brentonfilm.com%252fwp-content%252fuploads%252f2015%252f08%252fdvd-regions-worldwide.png%253fx18826%26ehk%3dDAEXvF1%252f23TpOqHWkTmYgMYUe0H0C7ss6ckBJeZRd%252fk%253d%26risl%3d%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=1019&expw=2000&q=dvd+
On Sat, 24 May 2025 23:55:28 -0400, Rich Ulrich
<rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:52:26 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
I have seen references to "region-free players", but how legal they
are I have no idea. Some discs are also region-free, but that is no
help here as most are not.
A "region free player" that is legal will cost more, because the
distributor pays a licensing fee for each additional region, like,
$10 or $20 dollars. All the DVD players are capable of all regions
depending only on what the firmware/software allows.
I don't know how the PAL TV standards fit in.
The image
<https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=%2ffCIQ6MW&id=AF8FA22CA223CD9E12C61B9C41332BE6A4D738A7&thid=OIP._fCIQ6MWRliLX_l5Wl0C3AHaDx&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.fdf08843a31646588b5ff9795a5d02dc%3frik%3dpzjXpOYrM0GcGw%
aka, ><https://www.brentonfilm.com/blu-ray-and-dvd-region-codes-and-video-standards>
shows that South Africa, like Greenland and the Middle East, are in
Region 1
Region 2, orange. Region 1 in very similar red
is the U.S.A., Canada, and Bermuda - the U.S.A.
including Hawaii and Puerto Rico - I think Bermuda
is too small for that map.
--with (most of) Europe (Europe ends at the Urals, so Belarus,
Ukrain, and Russia west-of-the-Urals are all in Europe but not in R2).
The include Great Britain. Which uses PAL. But I suppose that might
mean that the players intended for R2 have no problem with PAL or
(hopefully) NTSC.
Keep in mind that I have a DVD which is both R1 and PAL, so problems
can occur.
On 24/05/2025 17:01, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 00:15:33 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2025 16:14, Paul S Person wrote:
[The "Harry Potter" novels]
I should note that, in the books, there is, from the discovery of the
Prophecy onwards, a deliberate attempt to make it unclear if it is
Harry or Neville who is the One. The films don't really do that,
although Neville is certainly present in them.
I don't see that interpretation. A "prophecy"
was received before the main events of the
"Harry Potter" books took place, and as such
things go, it was typically uncertainly worded,
and insofar as "the One" is identified, only
their date of birth is given - but by the time
of the late chapter in each book where a teacher,
usually Dumbledore, explains the book's remaining
mysteries to Harry, when the prophecy comes up,
that matter apparently was settled.
By "discovery" I meant the discovery by Harry and so the reader. The
prophecy itself was much older and was known to some persons.
But not to Voldemort -- at least not the entire prophecy.
Both lost their parents to Voldemort's prior efforts. They are the
same age.
To clear this up a little now - in the "Harry Potter"
novels, Harry is born while the hidden world of magic
is being terrorized by the evil Voldemort and his
followers. Both Voldemort, and a vigilante faction
who oppose him, come into possession of a magic prophecy
do the birth of one person who can defeat Voldemort.
Or vice versa. (At least, we're told that's what it
means, and it is.) Voldemort apparently has read the
"Evil Overlord List" of must-do and not-dos for
evil overlords, or possibly a bit in the bible about
King Herod, and he sets out to kill one of the two
children that the prophecy could refer to, Harry Potter,
straight away. Due to what I'll call his carelessness,
this time the unmatchable Voldemort is disintegrated.
However, he isn't dead (magic), although nearly
everybody believes that he is - he vanished. But
really ending the conflict takes the rest of the
seven books.
I don't see why the prophecy isn't simply an incomplete
foretelling about Harry Potter - however, the wise teacher
Dumbledore seems to say in his explaining bit at the end
that Harry wasn't the one "one" until Voldemort attacked
Harry in a way that made it possible later for Harry to
defeat him. Which pretty much happened because of the
prophecy. So what if Voldemort hadn't done that? But
he did, so...
Anyway, Neville Longbottom is the other child who
could have been the person in the prophecy. But
according to Dumbledore, that ended when Voldemort
went after Harry Potter and blew himself up.
But Dumbledore doesn't always tell the truth, or
all of it - particularly to young students.
I do have a couple of personal theories on the
subject: that Neville's silly uncle is a secret
Voldemort follower and is trying to assassinate
him throughout the series (drowning, defenestration,
exploding plant); and that several students,
including Neville, are assigned to a school "House"
whose ethics don't match their existing personality
but are directions in which they need to be pushed.
That Neville is a Gryffindor not born, but made.
And is better for it.
I'm going to have to reread the books to rediscover Neville's silly
uncle. Is it Neville that is beeing drowned/defenestrated/exploded or
Voldmort?
Oh, it's Neville. The early attempts apparently are
because infant Neville appears not to be a wizard,
which is extremely shameful, and Great-Uncle Algie
believes that Neville's magic will appear under
stress. But I privately think that he was actually
trying to kill Neville, then and later. Alternatively,
Algie is extremely irresponsible, and so is anyone
who allows Algie to interact with children.
What he did /could/ have killed Neville.
Although the film didn't say it, the fact that he pulls the Sword of
Gryffindor out of a hat shows that he is as true a son of Gryffindor
as Harry is (who did the same thing in the Chamber of Secrets). Still,
you may be correct about his being made one. So may Harry, for that
matter -- Gryffindor was, after all, the Sorting Hat's second choice
for him.
My point, I think (it's been a while since I wrote the above) was that
the books did this and the films did not. Thus, Harry seeing Neville
with his parents while in the hospital is not in the film because it
is not important to the main story, in Harry is indeed The One.
It's important to our understanding of Neville's
story, though. You're right about the sword,
although I think the corresponding book has that
scene as show-don't-tell as well. Neville's
storyline is mostly off-stage - like the
sixth book and I assume film where Draco Malfoy
has a long-running project that we don't see
happening - but it may be as psychologically
complex as Harry's - if these books were that
kind of story. As it is, a lot of that is what
you put into the story while you experience it.
And of course Voldemort isn't obsessed with
killing Neville, even if Uncle Algie is.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 493 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 34:25:45 |
| Calls: | 9,740 |
| Files: | 13,741 |
| Messages: | 6,183,362 |